Julian Smart r sez: > Hi, > > Do you think you could clarify? I don't understand what you're > referring to here... perhaps the fact that the name has > 'Windows' in it? It's been 10 years and MS hasn't sued yet, > and the Lindows case didn't go well for them. I certainly > didn't intend to abuse the name, and in fact I was using > Windows in a generic (windowing) sense (it's only the first > 'w' that refers to the MS product :-))
Indeed. A basic principle of trademark law is that a trademark only applies to products, not to use of the word itself (otherwise Microsoft would be sending cease & desist orders to countless glass manufacturers...). "Lindows" got sued (fortunately) because they were writing a (supposedly) plug-in replacement for Microsoft Windows, and the name was misleading both Microsoft's and "Lindows"'s customers. The wxWindows people are not going to get a C&D order because they're doing something entirely different to operating systems. Besides, the trademark issue has (IMHO) f/a to do with whether this license should be certified by OSI or not (and it should be). > Julian lewis -- Lewis Collard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
